Wackenhut on Wackenhut force on force drill

September 13, 2006, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission attempts once again their force-on-force drill. This is a re-enactment of the drill Vermont Yankee security fared miserably at just before the 9-11-01.
In this drill a number of mock attackers tell the security forces at Vermont Yankee when and from where they will be “attacking”. The goal of the exercise is to see if the mock attackers can access the control room, if they can get by the VY (privately hired Wackenhut) security forces. In 2001, they did, and earned Vermont Yankee the notoriety of being called the least secure nuclear reactor in the country.
No doubt, the test on Wednesday will show, like the evacuation bus drill that has yet to arrive or depart quickly enough to prevent radiological contamination, yet is trumpeted as a “success”, that indeed the security at Vermont Yankee is formidable or robust.
It would be too embarrassing for Vermont Yankee and the NRC, the same people who last week sent an extremely radioactive item to the Susquehanna reactor in Pennsylvania for anything but a success to occur in this drill.
Maybe we in VT should be concerned that Entergy’s Pilgrim reactor in Plymouth Ma. just ended their contract with Wackenhut. Maybe we should be concerned that this force-on-force is being tested by Wackenhut against Wackenhut security at Vermont Yankee.
In 2004, the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry’s trade association and lobbying arm, hired Wackenhut to train and manage the “adversary teams” deployed in drills – called “force-on-force exercises” - used by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. This tests the individual reactor’s security crew’s ability to guard against would be attackers. If Wackenhut trains and manages the teams and if the security force at the reactor is also Wackenhut employed, how could it possibly serve Wackenhut to fail.
No matter what the test will be considered a success.
Can you feel the security? Can you feel the safety?

Twas a cold night in....

It was a cold night in…



Brattleboro, 8/10/06, that brought out a couple hundred local residents to learn of the
poorly managed town finances. Outside the Brattleboro High School multi-purpose room the thermometer registered in the mid 50s yet inside the air conditioner was cranking while residents sought information and accountability.
Some of the local townspeople were in shawls, some were in sweats ( I guess if your’s truly was cooler, not cold, I would call it a “hoodie”) and some toughed it out in short sleeves.

There is absolutely zero point in wearing layers inside in August. Conservation be damned (apparently)! No one would have been hurt had the a/c not been on so forcefully. It is hard for me to believe we could be so selfish to be using the local nuclear station power to make us shiver in August while we leave the nuclear waste for our children and grandchildren and their grandchildren ( 24 generations +) to clean up our waste.

But take heart Oh town leaders. I left the high school meeting with enough time to pick up some vegetables at the local co-op and the temperature there was no better,
Many adults use deodorant and or antiperspirant. If we do not get warm enough to perspire in August, it is no wonder so many “young adults” choose not to use the stuff.

latest flyer

Nuclear Power is Not Economically Competitive- It is expensive.

Nuclear power could not survive in a competitive energy market without huge government subsidies. The massive costs of waste disposal, reactor decommissioning and accident liability end up being paid by taxpayers of the future.

Nuclear Power Does Produce Ozone-depleting Pollutants

The uranium fuel, reactor and waste chain includes mining, milling, fuel production, transport, plant construction, decommissioning, waste management, hauling and storage. Every one of these processes releases carbon dioxide.

Uranium mining is one of the most fossil fuel-dependent industrial operations.

Cfc 114, which escapes from the uranium enrichment plants in the country, is roughly 50 times more effective at destroying ozone that all other CFC's.

Nuclear Power is anything but safe.

Simply put, if it were safe, we would not have evacuation plans, evacuation sirens, potassium iodide pills, Radiological Emergency Response Plans, fallout shelters, emergency protective zones, decontamination centers at local hospitals, etc.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology white paper proposes two growth potentials for nuclear. The authors envisioned a “global growth scenario” (and a steady state growth scenario) with a base case of 1,000 giga- watts (GW) of nuclear capacity installed around the world by 2050.
Since all of the reactors in operation today would be shutdown by mid-century… …This proposal would require one new reactor to come online somewhere in the world every 15 days on average between 2010 and 2050.

If this were the case, Assuming a constant rate of growth, a repository with the capacity of Yucca Mountain (70,000 metric tons) would have to come online somewhere in the world every three to five and a half years in order to handle the waste that would be generated.

resources to follow to self educate

Here are the one's I read,

evacuationplans.org
rutlandherald.com
reformer.com
nrc.gov
vermontguardian.com
Rmi.org
and i read their side too


and i research on the net...
issues that I determine to be important.
books books more books
and
I sit and learn in the state Public Service Board hearings
NRC. Local Select Boards etc..

Ready for Vt Yankee to Close?

IN order to do this... much education is needed for individuals and groups north and west of Windham County VT. IN order to do this one has to want to...

are you one?

Now is the time.
If we do not do it now - the industry and Entergy will continue to run roughshod over the state regulatory Public Service Board... the NRC Nuclear Rgulatory Commission has already been bought and paid for by the industry...

There is hope... stay tuned...

Nuclear power is not vital to the energy supply. Nuclear power provides only about 17 percent of the world’s power supply.

The nuclear power industry has received $150 billion in tax subsidies from the federal government since 1947, while renewables have received only 5 billion — 1/30th of nuclear subsidies.

Between 1950 and 1998, the federal government spent 56 percent of the energy supply research and development on nuclear energy, while only 11 percent was invested in all renewable technologies.

The Oko Institute (Bonn, Germany (1997)) found that a nuclear power station of standard size (1250 MW) indirectly emits between 376 billion and 1300 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year — after taking into account the whole fuel-to-waste cycle. Compared to renewable energy, nuclear power releases four to five times more CO2 per unit of energy produced. (VY =650 MW)

The U.S. DOE’s Energy Information Administration stated in its 2005 Annual Energy Outlook “new [nuclear] plants are not expected to be economical.”

A November 2000 DOE study, titled Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future, found that energy efficiency and renewable power could meet 60 percent of the nation’s need for new power capacity over the next 20 years. A 2001 study conducted by the Safe Energy Communication Council (SECC), a policy watchdog coalition, found that energy efficiency could replace all the electricity currently supplied by nuclear power for the same cost as continuing to operate existing U.S. nuclear reactors.

A 2004 study by Synapse Energy Economics found that the U.S. could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation by more than 47 percent by 2025 compared to business as usual and meet projected electricity demand, while saving consumers $36 billion annually. In fact, we can do this while cutting our reliance on nuclear power by nearly half.

Please make sure this information is known by the people who make VT and US laws.

information taken from Deadly Deceit- by By Molly Mechtenberg-Berrigan,
Science for Democratic Action Vol 14 no. 2/ Insurmoutable Risks by Brice Smith